NYT: A New Low. More To Come

With nothing left, the liberals have decided to go after Supreme Court Justice Roberts personally with vicious rumors and a "is he gay?" whisper campaign. With no Anita Hill, they've decided a pair of plaid pants, a late marriage, and two adopted kids will suffice.

Yesterday, The New York Times ran a piece about Roberts that snidely insinuate he's gay. One of my favorite bloggers, Ann Althouse writes: 

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys' school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and -- the final pic -- John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.

(Check out mine and Ann's spirited discussion of this.)

Wonkette picked up the same:

We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake.

Here's a man with young kids and the nation's most widely read newspaper questions whether or not his personal life -- his relationship with his wife -- the very foundation of his life -- is what he portrays it to be. My disgust isn't based on a belief that "gay," is automatically a slur. My disgust is the questioning of his personal life, the vicious rumor-mongering, and what his children will eventually hear on the playground.

Charmain Yoest writes:

Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone's sexual preference. It's a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay.

Who cares?

Well, that's just the point: they think we do. They think that they can undermine support for someone among conservatives if they can dredge up some sort of homosexual connection -- or, in this case, just the manufactured whiff of a question.

If it weren't so cruel and small, it would be funny. (It's not just the plaid pants. Some of the commenters on these other sites have been questioning the Roberts' marriage, and even referencing their adopted children. That's just beyond the pale.)

Powerline weighs in here.

I hate to disappoint The New York Times, but none of the other right wing extremists I hang with could care less if this guy's gay. But we sure care about smear campaigns. We sure care about cynical personal attacks counting on a prejudice we don't possess -- can you say "projection?" And this is just another revelatory moment we can throw in the face of The Times to back up our claim of how nasty, hypocritical, and bias this rag is.

But because we're decent, we wish this weren't the case. The man has children. 

UPDATE: Now Roberts' exuberant son is suffering the gay speculation.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin finds WaPo has reached a new low as well.

Usually when liberal expose themselves in this way, I'm thrilled. But this is too cruel. Too much.

Comments

[CJ]

Gosh, reading a little too much into the NYT article, aren't you? I didn't get the same impression from the article as you did, obviously, and it makes me wonder if you're not a wee bit defensive. Not necessarily defending NYT's integrity here (snort), but think maybe you're looking a little too hard for something to complain about.

[Dirty Harry]

It's not just me. And Ann Althouse is no partisan.

[Markay]

No, it's not just Dirty Harry. And Ann Althouse and Charmaine Yoest.

I read the NYT piece and it seems quite clear what they're up to. They haven't got the guts to just come out and say it (pun intended) and they're carefully shielding themselves behind layers of deniability, but the innuendo is purposefully there.

I wonder how liberal gays feel about constantly having allegations of homosexuality used as a smear against conservative opponents. If "gay" is such an insult (Mary Cheney, Guckert/Gannon, Ken Mehlman, Santorum's aide) then how do they justify supporting those who so frequently, and gleefuly, hurl it?

The Left makes less and less sense as time goes on.

[CJ]

I'm just confused as to where you're reading all the gay references. Plaid pants=gay? Oh please. I have gay friends and let me assure you, they wouldn't be caught dead in such attire. Wrestling=gay? Peppermint Patty=gay?

Work with me here...

[Scriptfox]

I believe the point is that they are playing to "gay stereotypes"-- not that those stereotypes actually conform to reality.

Heh, those knock your eyes out pants are easily accounted for by the date of the picture. Was there ever a decade that committed more sartorial crimes than the 70's?

There is another interesting possibility as well... let's say the reporter is simply given the job of "find pictures of him that look good to you and that you find interesting"... if that was the case, and if this was the result, might this indicate a personal bias on the part of the reporter...

(Spin the finger, where it stops, nobody knows.)

[m]

I don't understand how in the hell you could get that this guy was gay after reading this piece. I mean the NYT was practically bending over backwards to fellate him on how wonderful he is. There have been so many cases of GOP lawmakers being outed lately, that it does make one wonder? Could it be that all of the anti-gay rhetoric is merely a show to hide folks' pulsing sapphic desires and propensity to sodomy? Why else would people be so quick to take a very kind character sketch in the NYT as a queer smear campaign? Seriously. And by seriously I mean not seriously.

[m]

Markay, I don't think you get it. Gay is not an insult for liberals, and it's a welcome card. You see, if one is gay than one is probably less likely to support a party which mumbles about some hidden "homosexual agenda" as if all the gay people in the world are about to overthrow our government and make sodomy mandatory. Rather, we'd love our conservative friends with relatively high Kinsey numbers to just come out, admit their propensity, start shopping at Barney's, and have the ability to offer their domestic partners health insurance. And we wouldn't even necessarily ask them to join our party, just to stop fighting others with the same carnal urges.